I totally agree with what you wrote. And yes, I respect the GPL. The decision to fork and rename was based on the following factors.
1. It seemed pointless to ask for your permission to continue Fire under its last name, given that you chose to discontinue it and work on RobboLito. I totally respect your decison! But the GPL allows to proceed without such a permission, appropriately so. This is part of the open-source ideology.
2. Then it looked like it was more appropriate to rename the continuation of the project. Besides, this way you can resume Fire under its old name at any time if you choose to do so, without any confusion. And if you happen to choose to contribute to the Firenzina fork, that will be greatly appreciated and promptly acknowledged.
3. Historically, the project was renamed from FireBird to Fire before, in order to avoid confusion with the database management system, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebird_% ... _server%29. Mozilla acted likewise earlier, when they renamed their browser from Firebird to Firefox. So Fire was not the first name choice. I hope it won't be missed much if not continued.
4. Then I consciously chose another name similar to Fire, with an allusion to Renaissance ("rebirth"), in which the city of Florence (Firenze, pronounced [fiˈrɛntse]) played an important role. Now, Firenze is also a name of a centaur in the Harry Potter series, and Firenza was once an Oldsmobile model. If you google the name selected, I hope you'll agree that I chose wisely enough. I found that Firenzina is a brand of very expensive Italian shoes for women and was once a name of a thoroughbred. Firenzina is also mentioned in Italian political articles, apparently as an informal alternative name for Florence. This use traces back to the XIX c., at least. The name is also close to "Fire engine".
5. Roberto Pescatore might appreciate the renaming.
Best regards,
Dmitri
+1
i appreciate your candor and enthousiasm...
you have my full support.
i will consider contributing ideas from an unpublished Fire 2.3, which includes code/strength improvements, as well as 70 more (new) user configurable eval terms.
to fix your MS/Intel compiles:
change your compile C++ code generation (target) from
Multi-threaded DLL (/MD)
to
Multi-threaded (/MT)
this will eliminate the need for the MS run-time DLLs
i will consider contributing ideas from an unpublished Fire 2.3, which includes code/strength improvements, as well as 70 more (new) user configurable eval terms.
to fix your MS/Intel compiles:
change your compile C++ code generation (target) from
Multi-threaded DLL (/MD)
to
Multi-threaded (/MT)
this will eliminate the need for the MS run-time DLLs
Norm, thank you very much!! I will fix my compiles tonight. Like I stated before, you're most welcome to contribute, which decision on your part, if finalized, would, naturally, immediately put you back on board as the primary current author.
Jose, thank you very much! Your compile runs successfully on my Intel Core 2 Quad at work. Is it okay to mirror it on my Edinboro Firenzina site? I intend to race it against other compiles on my Intel Core i7 quad at home later.
Gusev wrote:Jose, thank you very much! Your compile runs successfully on my Intel Core 2 Quad at work. Is it okay to mirror it on my Edinboro Firenzina site? I intend to race it against other compiles on my Intel Core i7 quad at home later.
You have my project file include , load it and you can do the same compilation,
then remove the:
#define HasPopCNT
#define LargePages
and get a compilation x64 not popcnt
then remove
#define WINDOWS_X64
#define HasPopCNT
#define LargePages
and obtains a compilation x32.
good luck with the project and do not forget to thank the real authors Ippolit project PUBLIC DOMAIN, where derivate fire.
it was always open-source,
anyone that wanted to could contribute
This is exactly the way the project is meant to continue after its "rebirth".
Hi, my friend. I have an opinion here, and be sure that is all it is- just an opinion. If I were you, I would ask myself a question. I would say, "myself, can you go into the search and evaluation functions of this engine and make a number of changes?" And if the answer I got back from myself was "no"- I would look for other worlds to conquer.
Good question! Eventually, yes. However, we're at a "proof of concept" stage. It looks like it may be possible to show that the project was abandoned prematurely. Then the greedy approach to improvement dictates that one should pick the "low-hanging fruit" (c) Vas. Those may not be search and eval at first.
